That type of thinking—arguing that those who disagree with you are dumb, irrational or corrupt—is the first step on the path that leads to democracy’s destruction. Some liberals maintain that lower-middle-class people vote against their economic interests by siding with Republicans, without considering the possibility that social issues like banning abortion might matter more to them than their financial well-being. Some conservatives contend that people only support Democrats because they want government handouts, without considering the possibility that these voters believe in expanding individual rights for minorities or expanding access to the nation’s health care system. College students don’t know enough to vote intelligently, the elderly vote only for conservatives because of racism—the denigration goes on and on.

The next step: maintaining that your candidate is winning, regardless of the facts. In the last election, conservatives engaged in a surreal effort to “unskew” polls—essentially rejiggering them in ways they believed removed bias but that actually just extracted statistical requirements to create fictitious signs of victory for their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Political commentator Peggy Noonan famously dismissed poll results and predicted Romney would win, in part because she saw more yard signs for him in Florida. In this election, Sanders supporters have criticized those who now point out the mathematical near-impossibility of him winning the nomination, spinning scenarios of victory that are as credible as an unskewed poll.

The last and most destructive step: screaming fraud and manipulation. This is the logical outcome of the other steps. If no rational person would disagree with you, and your candidate was obviously winning (in your polls), then defeat could have come about only by rigged rules or crimes at the ballot box.